Thursday, April 6, 2017

Seattle Mayor Responds to Rape Allegation

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray responds to rape allegations

Through his attorney, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray denied allegations of child rape hours after it was reported that a Kent man is suing Murray over claims that he “raped and molested” him as a teen.

Although the public thought that the mayor would respond, his attorney spoke instead.

Here we have insight into what his attorney may believe about his client:

Bob Sulkin, a private attorney said,

“The allegations are false. He has not engaged in any inappropriate conduct with a minor. And I don’t think it is a coincidence that these allegations have occurred in the midst of a mayoral campaign. Think about it, for 30 years nothing is said. And all of a sudden an accuser comes — who apparently, as reported, has a long criminal record — and makes these allegations.”

1. He states that the allegations are false, not that he did not rape the teen.

2. We now know that the attorney believes that there was conduct with a minor, only that it was not, in the attorney's subjective dictionary, "inappropriate."

3. Next: the alleged victim's motive is attacked: political.

4. Then, we note that the attorney attacks the victim, personally. The accuser is demonized. Attacking the accuser pointedly is often an attribute of habitual liars.

These latter points weaken the assertion that the allegations are false. 5. TimeNote that rather than make a denial of the action, he points to the passage of time. This is a form of diversion.

Sulkin further said that the lawsuit, submitted April 4, is not the first time such allegations have been made against Murray “in an effort to undermine him.” He argued that those previous allegations were investigated and found to be not credible.

“Unfortunately, defending these types of lawsuits is now the cost of being a public figure, especially a public figure like Mayor Murray who has taken such important stands on cutting edge issues of the day,” Sulkin said.

Sulkin did not take any questions from the press after making the statement Thursday afternoon. Murray told The Times that he will “vigorously fight” the allegations.Analysis Conclusion: His attorney does not believe his client is innocent. Note that sexual abuse of minors can often lead to illegal and inappropriate behavior. Here, the attorney uses it to discredit the alleged victim, rather than deny the actual allegation. This gives us our insight into his need to persuade rather than truthfully state.

Allegations against the Seattle mayor

The Kent man — referred to as D.H. in court documents — alleges that the interactions with Murray began when he was 15 years old and regularly rode Metro bus no. 7 in the Capitol Hill area in the mid ’80s. At the time, the teen had dropped out of Nathan Hale High School as a freshman. He was a troubled youth who was homeless, using drugs, and whose parents were also addicted to drugs. According to the Times’ report, the man — then a teen — was addicted to crack-cocaine. Court documents state that the teen met Murray on the bus and the two “developed a friendly interaction.” Murray was 32 years old at the time.

Murray was aware of the teen’s age as the relationship between the two allegedly turned sexual over time, court documents state. That relationship was allegedly based on Murray paying the teen $10-20 for sexual acts, often at Murray’s Capitol Hill apartment. Court documents go further into detail about the interactions and describe physical aspects of the allegations as evidence. D.H. was below the age of consent during the time of the alleged acts, and therefore the mayor is being accused of child rape.

Since the incidents in the ’80s, Murray has accepted collect calls at his home from D.H., the lawsuit alleges.

The court document also addresses something that Sulkin spoke about Thursday — political motivations of the lawsuit, which states:

Natural speculation would lead some people to believe that D.H.’s actions are politically motived — which is not exactly true. In this regard, D.H. is disturbed that Mr. Murray maintains a position of trust and authority, and believes that the public has a right to full information when a trusted official exploits a child. To the extent that D.H. has any political motivations for outing Mr. Murray, they stop there.

The recent allegations against Mayor Murray aren’t the first. The Times further reports that within the past decade, two other men have accused Murray of sexual abuse. The men have said the abuse occurred in the ’80s when they, too, were teens in the Portland area and before Murray moved to Seattle. Their stories, as reported in The Seattle Times, are similar to the tale told in the recent lawsuit — troubled youth who entered into sexual relationships with Murray.

Both men tell The Times they would be willing to testify publicly.

The lawsuit states that the plaintiff’s attorney intends to depose Murray within 90 days, and that “D.H. believes that it will be hard, if not nearly impossible for Mr. Murray to deny the abuse” and that “D.H. would be shocked if Mr. Murray does not recall exactly who he was.”

Off topic, quote from family of teen driver in this story http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4386036/Doctor-stopped-help-teenagers-car-accident-dies.html:

"We just don't want anyone to believe that Keith was intoxicated or purposely meant to injure anyone. He just lost control. He drove into a previous accident that was on the freeway, he tried to stop and his car spun out and unfortunately he hit the accident already there, according to state police that were on the scene. Again, we pray that everyone makes a recovery. There are three people involved that are in critical condition and please pray with us that they'll all heal."

1. Order is priority. The priority is what anyone believes, not the three people in critical condition?2. The use of "Just" The word "just" is used when comparing two or more things. - just lost control - minimizes?- just don't want anyone to believe - there's other options to believe?

"Think about it." That reminds me of Woody Allen's rebuttal to his daughter's accusation of child sex abuse. As if appealing to logic or reason is any defense against the accusation. There can't be any "argument" against that accusation; there are only 2 possible responses: admission or denial.

Three-part documentary about the Casey Anthony case reveals that her parents, George and Cindy Anthony, have different theories about what happened to their granddaughter, Caylee.

“They’ve each come to terms with who they think did it,” said journalist Steph Watts, who interviewed the couple for “Casey Anthony: An American Murder Mystery.” “They have completely different theories about how their granddaughter was murdered.”

The program premieres at 10 p.m. Sunday-Tuesday on Investigation Discovery. The Tuesday portion offers Watts’ interviews with the couple.

Casey Anthony was acquitted of Caylee’s death in 2011. She did not talk to the program in which George and Cindy introduce themselves as Caylee’s grandparents.

“I intentionally made sure that I interviewed them separately,” Watts said. “Cindy has a tendency to be overpowering.”

George Anthony speaks about his suicide attempt and the allegation against him, made by defense attorney Jose Baez in the opening statement, that he had sexually abused Casey.

“He was very candid about how he feels today about his daughter and his relationship with her and where that relationship is going,” Watts said, declining to give specifics. “It’s something that will shock people about where the relationship is today,” he added.

The program features interviews with prosecutor Jeff Ashton, Judge Belvin Perry Jr. and sheriff’s detectives John Allen and Eric Edwards. But Watts, a co-executive producer, said George Anthony supplies the news.

Casey, Caylee and George Anthony are featured on the cover of the National Enquirer along with the headlines “Casey Anthony dad’s bombshell confession” and “Yes, she killed Caylee!”

The documentary had access to trial coverage assets of American Media Inc., the parent of National Enquirer. But Watts added, “They are not involved editorially. They have no control over anything I asked in my interviews.”

Even so, one National Enquirer headline refers to what George Anthony says in the Tuesday telecast, a channel spokeswoman said.

George and Cindy Anthony “trusted me with their story,” Watts said. “I’m confident that we kept our word it wouldn’t be exploitative.”

Casey Anthony talked to The Associated Press in March and said she didn’t care what the public thinks of her and revealed that she sleeps “pretty good at night.”

“Obviously, I wished I had talked to Casey,” Watts said. “Who wouldn’t want to talk to Casey? We probably wouldn’t get the truth, but she would be an interesting interview.”

She told The AP that “cops lie to people every day” and “my dad was a cop.”

Watts said Casey continued the backhanded attacks on her father, then asked, “What is the point in that?”

It is interesting that the lawyer adheres to the most used method of defense. He chooses to attack the victim, who was a minor at the time, then changes the victim order to make his client out to be the real target/victim of a malicious "political" scheme. He does this without the major element of a reliable denial.

This is another case of a vulnerable, confused boy with an existing credibility deficit, coupled with a normal need to be loved and accepted, being sexually exploited by an adult.

Is there confirmation of grooming behavior by the accused in addition to the allegations? I think yes.

Unfortunately, the Mayor responded THROUGH the attorney, leaving only the lawyer's words to analyze. It is difficult to know if the words chosen for the statement were initiated by the client or his defending attorney.I am unsure of the percentage of defense attorneys who actually Believe in their client's innocence.

You're incapable of stating what you think happened. There is a reason for that. You know there is no realistic alternative explanation. We bombed an airbase that launched chemical weapons. THAT IS THE RIGHT THING. Absolutely moronic and EVIL that the world turned the other way while Assad bombed/gassed his own people. That is gross immaturity. You don't even have an argument, just ridiculous flailing of hands

I'm not susceptible to your low-level attempts at distracting from the essential disagreement. You are intelligent enough to know what we were disagreeing about, but not smart enough to argue your point? I hardly think that makes sense. I won't engage with your attempts to manipulate or blame-shift in order to avoid forming a concrete argument, so very simple, what you think actually happened if not Assad w possible help from Russia regarding the hospital bombings. You are showing intellectual weakness and dishonesty, which I find most disturbing.

I think your point is that we shouldn't have "punished" Assad, and YOU ARE WRONG, and that is a morally repugnant argument. Passivity in the face of great evil is more evil than the evil itself.

I am very proud of our country for doing the right thing, and if you choose to call that war-mongering, that is your dishonest attempt to distort. Yes I am proud we punished Assad, and there were no other ways we could have done it that would have made any sense or had any effect.

It took a lot of guts for Trump to order the strike, knowing as he did it would even enrage Russia, and Trump was scared you could tell in his little conference he gave, and Trump does just want to be liked by everyone, and he did it anyway. For that I am very proud of him, I always knew that deep down he is good man.

How dishonest can you be? You keep referring to WE did the right thing. He, one man, the POTUS ordered the attack. There is no evidence that Assad ordered the chem attack. How convenient that instantly Sue Rice headline news is gone. Same for the prior POTUS spying headline news: GONE. The narrative of 'punishing' Assad is fantasy. There's a pipeline war in Syria. Stop defending fake news.

There's plenty of evidence Assad ordered the attack. Are you also going to say previous chemical attacks were not ordered by Assad? Why is US intelligence saying that they were ordered from that airbase? Why are there photographs or what appears to be containers of chemical weapons at that airbase? Are you going to say that evidence that Russia helped bomb the hospitals was fabricated? This was a sophisticated attack done by the head of state. If Assad didn't order it, then who did? Assad didn't even deny having ordered it, so what the hell are you talking about?Your babble is no different than people who were mistakenly believed that rumors that the Nazis were killing Jews in the concentration camps was "fantasy" and that it was a harmless holding area. REmember, that's why it took so long for the world to act...self-deception, they didn't want to believe what was really happening.

Yes, I always knew Trump is a good man deep down. That's called perception and intuition, and yes, I KNEW IT. Trump is a good man who was disturbed from seeing the pictures of the dead kids and babies, he has a heart, he has moral fiber and a moral backbone, unlike Obama who is as cold as it gets and who was NOT moved by seeing Assad's murdering ways.

I just looked at cnn website, and I see some people are distancing themselves from Trump bc he bombed Syrian airbase. Those people are cowards. Those people are obviously not parents--no parent can look at those pictures of those dead and dying kids and not realize that the right thing to do is put Assad in his place. This life is not easy, sometimes war is necessary, you see a tyrant gassing kids and these people don't think that a stronger party should defend those kids??? that faggy looking Brexit guy, what an a-hole, how would he feel if it was his kid? Those people criticizing Trump can go to hell. Trump knows he did the right thing, and it wasn't easy.

Thank you. Finally. You just acknowledged the fallacy of 'knowing'. The photos do not prove 'whom' was responsible. The photos are thought to have been the primary manipulative factor in trumps decision. Who wouldn't be disturbed and outraged, but then mis guided and mis directed. You neeed to grow up. You exude elementary level guillibility. Easily decieved because, SOMEBODY ON THE TV SAID, SO I BELEEB ITS TRUE. GOTTA BE TRUE. I KNOW ITS TRUE. I PERCEEB ITS TRUE. But its fake news....So stop spreading it.

That coming from someone who STILL hasn't stated who you believe used the sarin gas on the people last Tuesday? That's awfully arrogant of you say I exude such gullibility when you have no alternative explanation.

Assad did it. If you don't think he did it, then who did it?????

Our intelligence knows the planes that bombed took off from that airbase.

It was a sophisticated, multi-prong attack done by a head of state.

You're just baiting me, I don't really believe you doubt that Assad was behind it. You can't possible be that stupid, can you?

I hope you're not that morally corrupt, although it is evident you are.

No, I created that statement "It was a sophisticated, multi-prong attack done by a head of state". I did not read any part of that statement anywhere, nor did I read any information that suggested that specific conclusion...That statement I wrote is something I determined based on what I know of how dictatorships operate, as well as what know of war.

If the Brexit guy criticized Trump for bombing Syria, then he is NOT COURAGEOUS!!!! And he deserves to be insulted for getting up on the world stage on presenting such a perverse, disgusting opinion, that Trump was wrong in his view to defend those kids and babies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who cares what I called him???? There are kids and babies dying, what does that matter in contrast? It doesn't.

I didn't read that article from 2015 from Washington Post, and the only thing I've read about the Syria airbase bombing is dailymail, and I glanced at the cnn summary of its top story about the naysayers (did not even read the summary, just glanced, skimmed).

That is my statement, which I deduced. I did not parrot it or copy it or even copy the thoughts behind it. That was my deduction based on reading dailymail which did not address whether a head of state had done it and did not speak of multi-prong attacks in that language. I wrote the statement, it is my thought. You seem to have no tangible constructive, perhaps you're jealous.

I didnt plagiarize it consciously or subconsciously. I've never read the Washington Post article.

A sophisticated multi-pronged attack.Assad bombed the town with actual bombs. In the ensuing chaos, trying to help people under rubble, many people died of the simultaneous sarin attack bc in the chaos of helping people out from under rubble, many women and children succumbed to the sarin and were not able to get medical help bc noone realized there had been a chemical attack and they were dealing with the destruction from the bombings. Those who did make it to the hospital were not so fortunate either, bc the hospitals were bombed both to increase Assad's terroristic power as well as to attempt to hide the chemical attack. Those few patients being treated (some who died in Turkey) were tested and found to be positive for sarin. Providing proof Assad did not anticipate. This was not an attack done by insurgents. It was Assad's doing with Russia's help. Trump is up against some very diabolical forces. He was scared, yet he did the right thing. I admire him so much and may God be with him!

@958, Because he rules through terror. It wasnt mass casualties he was after...it was a gruesome tragedy he wanted to create with a gas that works so quickly..he wanted to instill fear with sarin gas....it was an act of terror to attempt to paralyze those who seek to overthrow him.

Also, I think Bashar Assad is a sick madman...it makes no sense why he clings onto power...his inhabitants have fled, he is hated. He gets a sick charge out of doing things like the gas attack Tues but it serves a practical purpose of terrorizing people also.

@1024, Why would he think that this most recent attack would lead the US to destroy his airbase? He has killed 500,000 of his own citizens and has been doing it for years and neither the US nor any other state has done shit about it. Even when they said they would, they didn't. What more would he need to feel emboldened and to feel their would be no consequences? Why would he think 78 people would finally bring punishment upon him when he had gotten away with killing 500,000 through gassing bombing and starvation? The whole world has turned the other way for YEARS as he slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people.

If Russia retaliates, it's a price we will have to pay. It was the right thing to do. Children and babies being killed. We had no other morally sound choice than what Trump opted to do. Trump behaved as a true and courageous Christian.

Do you know there is a civil war in Syria now? Do you know there was a civil war in USA not long ago and 100's of thousands of US dead. Did Abraham Lincoln kill them? Should Russia or anyone else have intervened to stop the killing?

"Do you know there is a civil war in Syria now? Do you know there was a civil war in USA not long ago and 100's of thousands of US dead. Did Abraham Lincoln kill them? Should Russia or anyone else have intervened to stop the killing?"

What you wrote is a non-sequitur.

Abe Lincoln was not using chemical weapons on his own people!?! And Abe Lincoln was fighting for a righteous cause which was to liberate the slaves in the South! Assad has brutally murdered hundreds of thousands including CHILDREN AND BABIES simply to maintain his dictatorship.

It is illegal to use chemical weapons, and we absolutely did the right thing!!! I am deeply proud of our country and armed forces.

I think Trump should be letting in the Syrian refugees. That is the Christian thing to do. Any other approach is not Christian. (Although I do agree with the travel ban--that's a different thing.)

Where are the pronouns? He is not saying that he had thought about it. He is not saying that for 30 years this victim said "nothing."

This statement is meant to persuade without being factual or truthful.

"Think about it" I think that the only person that would benefit from "nothing" being said is the offender. I think that the offender got a sense of power and control by silencing his victims and making them feel that they would not be believed if they talked about the systematic sexual abuse.

Bottle Cap said...Off topic, quote from family of teen driver in this story http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4386036/Doctor-stopped-help-teenagers-car-accident-dies.html:

"We just don't want anyone to believe that Keith was intoxicated or purposely meant to injure anyone. He just lost control. He drove into a previous accident that was on the freeway, he tried to stop and his car spun out and unfortunately he hit the accident already there, according to state police that were on the scene. Again, we pray that everyone makes a recovery. There are three people involved that are in critical condition and please pray with us that they'll all heal."

1. Order is priority. The priority is what anyone believes, not the three people in critical condition?2. The use of "Just" The word "just" is used when comparing two or more things. - just lost control - minimizes?- just don't want anyone to believe - there's other options to believe?

Bottlecap,

Consider who made the statement and what the subject's primary concern would be given the context.

What would impact them most? What might they be hearing from others, or media?

Their teen family member accused, or strangers being in the accident? The hina clause gives insight.

The Susan Rice story is over. Trump just permanently removed it from page one by misguided Syrian attack. History repeats.

The Kuwaiti ambassadors daughter lying to congress about Iraqi soldiers killing newborns in kuwait hospital.General Powell and the vial of chemical and photos of WMD.Now Nikki H with photos of chem attack victims. Former British Amb to Syria knows Assad did not attack. The insurgency attacked. And Instantly Nikki has the proof.

I live in WA state. NOT in the city of Seattle. The mayor of Seattle is a wack-a-doodle on a number of different accounts besides this. These accusations are not new. He was also accused of this in the past in the city of Portland, Oregon when he worked with "troubled" MALE youth. Great way to deny any wrong doing when the victim has a checkered past. Easy to say they are liars or want money to go away. I feel bad for his lawyer, Sulkin. To feel your client is guilty and have to defend them would eat at your soul.

I read that there were rumors circulating that he was drunk/high and people were harassing the young man and his family. I also read that the rumors were false and police confirmed that there was not alcohol or drugs in the young mans system. What a tragedy! A doctor loses her life, a young man with a hopeful running career/college scholarship loses his foot, and the third young man in critical condition.

The tragic death of Florida toddler Caylee Anthony is being revisited next week in a three-part series airing on Investigation Discovery.

'Casey Anthony: An American Murder Mystery' will give viewers a look back at the three-year ordeal that began on July 15, 2008 when Cindy Anthony called police to report her granddaughter has been missing for over a month, and ended on July 11, 2011 when Caylee's mother Casey was acquitted of her child's murder.

It will feature new interviews with many of the key players in the case from the sheriff who first investigated Caylee's disappearance and the judge who oversaw the trial to one of the alternate jurors who was part of he group that shocked the world when they declared Casey not guilty of first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, and aggravated manslaughter of a child.

The most anticipated interviews however will be with Cindy and Casey's father George Anthony, who agreed to speak about the happy daughter they raised and the beautiful granddaughter who left them far too soon.

And while Casey will not be sitting down for an interview, she will be making an appearance in some never-before-seen video footage, including one shocking visit in which the incarcerated mother went through an extreme range of emotions in a matter of just two minutes while refusing to answer one simple question.

The prison video was captured on August 14, 2008 when George and Cindy paid a visit to their daughter Casey at the Orange County Jail.

Casey, who was 22 at the time, had been incarcerated for a month at that time on charges of child neglect, lying to investigators and interfering with a criminal investigation.

The child neglect charge because she did not report her daughter missing despite the fact that she had not seen the girl for 30 days, while the other two were handed down after she lied to investigators by claiming to work at Universal Orlando Resort despite having been fired two years prior.

In the days prior to her meeting with her parents, Casey had twice refused to see them but on this day agreed, five days after what would have been Caylee's third birthday.

'Hey gorgeous, how you doing,' asks George at the beginning of the visit, immediately causing Casey's face to crumble while she starts to sob.

'I look like hell,' she says to her father in the video while laughing through her tears.

'Well you know I want to be able to reach out and hug you, give you the bid Papa Joe hug,' says George.

He then hints at what many perceived to be the conflicted feelings that Casey's parents were harboring about their daughter's innocence by saying: 'I want to take all your pain away. So you know, you can tell me anything.'

The camera shows Casey at that moment looking like a completely different person as she nods her head like a school girl and flashes a serene smile while saying in a voice that sounds an octave higher than how she normally speaks: 'I know that, dad.'

An incredulous and grief-stricken Cindy then reaches over and pulls the phone away from her husband, briefly becoming overwhelmed with emotion as she says to her daughter: 'Hi sweetie.'

Casey's face immediately darkens and her eyes appear to lose focus as she stares emotionless while her mother sobs.

'We're not doing well Casey. Someone just said that... Caylee was dead this morning,' says Cindy, while wiping her nose and hiding her face while she cries.

Casey responds by sneering and saying in a sarcastic tone: 'Surprise, surprise.'

She also throws in a quick eye roll just as George and Cindy's despair and devastation turns almost instantly into disbelief at what their daughter just said to them and her flippant attitude about her missing child.

Cindy is then forced to close her eyes and not even look at her daughter as she says: 'We need to... we need to have something to go on.'

Casey is then shown in a fierce rage, ripping her head around as she lashes out at her mother saying: 'Mom, I don't have anything.I'm sorry. I've been here a month today.'

She then goes from screaming at her parents to demanding their sympathy by asking: 'Do you understand how I feel? I'm not in control over of any of this. You don't understand. Everybody wants me to have answers.'

That then transforms into a frustrated release of Casey's pent up emotions as she clenches her fists and goes red while shaking and then yelling out: 'Come on.'

Cindy, whose energy seems to be far too spent already given the fact that her granddaughter is missing, does not even attempt to show sympathy for her daughter and says in the same even tone and with the same steady voice: 'Casey. Come on. Settle down baby.'

Casey then gets terse and clenches up as she states: 'No one is letting me speak. I don't know what's going on. My entire life has been take from me.'

A quick cut to her parents shows their disinterest in Casey's diatribe approaching the point of disdain, with Cindy looking close to rolling her own eyes but instead blinking just once.

Unfortunately her face could not be seen when Casey continued her list of grievances by saying: 'Everything has been taken from me.'

That is when Cindy looks at her daughter and leans in towards the glass to say as close as she can to her child: 'It doesn't make sense.'

Casey wipes her eyes as she responds by saying: 'Mom ...'

At that point the footage shows Cindy practically leaning on the glass, almost as if she believes that this could be the moment she has been waiting for since Caylle's disappearance.

What she gets instead however is a cryptic message from a now much cooler Casey, who says in a relaxed tone: 'Because this is recorder, and I don't know who's going to see things and who's going to misconstrue whatever else. There's things that I need to directly say to each of you.'

With no options left and searching for some glimmer of truth, Cindy tries one last approach to getting a straight answer from her raving and raging daughter.

'I have a question for you ... what is your gut telling you right now?' asks Cindy, whose heartbreaking expression seems to suggest that she is resigning herself to the worst case scenario.

'That she's okay. And she's not far,' says a nodding and once again teary-eyed Casey.

'And your gut tells you that ... she's close or somewhere hiding,' asks Cindy, pressing her daughter a bit for more any possible information.

'I know in my heart she's not far. I can feel it.'

Casey would be set free from Orange County jail just a few days later on $500,000 bond.

Four months after that jailhouse meeting Caylee's skeletal remains were discovered wrapped in a blanket and stiffed in a trash that had been tossed into an overgrown area near the family's home.

Her daughter gone, Casey then lost whatever chance she had of keeping a relationship with her parents when she and her defense team decided to build their case on the allegation that her father sexually abused her as a child despite a lack of any evidence.

To me, it doesn't seem particularly suspicious for a rapist's victims -- particularly victims of child rape -- not to come forward immediately. If they have been groomed, they may feel love or affection for their rapist and may not recognize the wrongness of what was done to them and/or its psychological impact on them for many years. They may blame themselves for what happened. They may be afraid of what the rapist will do if they reveal what happened. They may rightly fear being vilified by the rapist and/or the rapist's attorneys, as has happened to Bill Cosby's victims, Bill Clinton's victims, Michael Jackson's victims, etc. There is very little personal benefit to a rape victim if they come forward and reveal what happened.

tHE "NEVER BEFORE SEEN" jail video of Casey was shown on the Nancy Grace show not long after it actually happened.Even Nancy Grace's current website quotes the video as "never before seen".In the whirlwind of publicity covering this case, has the media overlooked or forgotten that the video was previously shown?

Most interesting thing about the video is the interaction between Casey and each of her parents. Tania, do you know of a reason why the Child Neglect charge was not carried over for her trial, particularly since it stemmed from not reporting Caylee missing? I often wonder why there was not more focus on the whereabouts of Caylee during the many times Casey reported to friends that Cindy had her, to Cindy that Zanaida had her - when everyone involved were told that Caylee was being cared for by someone else. Caylee was Not being cared for by Anyone on many occasions for more than 2 years. Casey's pattern of neglect, which ultimately led to Caylee's death, should have been proven and led to a conviction on that charge.

@LCI wonder too why she was never found guilty of at least child neglect. I understand that first degree murder hasn't been proved and therefore she never could be sentenced for it. But it sure has been proven she has neglected her child (by not reporting her missing for 30 days), so I wonder what motive jurors had to not convict her for that part, but instead sent her home as a women who "did nothing wrong". Did any juror ever told publicly about their motive to not convict her of neglect?

"Note that sexual abuse of minors can often lead to illegal and inappropriate behavior."Peter can you explain your meaning in this sentence?Because as anonymous said at April 7,9.24, isn't sexual abuse illigal and inappropriate anyways and not only "often lead to"?